This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: v2: The GNU C Library 2.16 release plan
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos_odonell at mentor dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at systemhalted dot org>, Mike Frysinger<vapier at gentoo dot org>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Joseph S. Myers"<joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Andreas Jaegar <aj at suse dot com>, Paul Eggert<eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, "Ryan S. Arnold" <ryan dot arnold at gmail dot com>, "H.J. Lu"<hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:28:39 -0400
- Subject: Re: v2: The GNU C Library 2.16 release plan
- References: <4FAC3FCE.1020402@mentor.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205302354240.8161@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205311847020.15944@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <201205311551.54950.vapier@gentoo.org> <CADZpyiyLBJkt-KD_E8pfnj3HC9VjWZF=D=2tKntd3r61ty-9GQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120604175301.B5A342C0A5@topped-with-meat.com>
On 6/4/2012 1:53 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Is there any way we can come to better consensus around the fortify warnings?
>
> What seems appropriate for configurations that want to enable fortification
> by default is that they predefine some other macro whose meaning is "set
> _FORTIFY_SOURCE if optimizing", rather than predefining _FORTIFY_SOURCE
> itself. That way the features.h check can distinguish a user adding
> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE without -O from the predefinition.
So what's the next step?
* Configurations agree to _FORTIFY_SOURCE_IF_OPT?
- Who would set this and where?
* We change glibc to use _FORTIFY_SOURCE_IF_OPT?
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
Carlos O'Donell
Mentor Graphics / CodeSourcery
carlos_odonell@mentor.com
carlos@codesourcery.com
+1 (613) 963 1026